| Title | 'Place' in Context: On Theophrastus Fr. 21 et 22 Wimmer |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1992 |
| Published in | Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings |
| Pages | 141-165 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Algra, Keimpe A. |
| Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Gutas, Dimitri |
| Translator(s) |
| Fr. 21 and fr. 22 Wimmer—two passages in Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics—constitute virtually all the available information concerning Theophrastus’ ideas about place. Fr. 21 (Simpl., In Phys., Corollarium de loco [CAG vol. 9 p. 604.5–11 Diels]) contains a relatively straightforward enumeration of what Simplicius describes as a set of aporiai put forward by Theophrastus in connection with Aristotle’s famous final definition of place as the "inner boundary of the surrounding body." As to fr. 22, an allegedly verbatim quotation (Simpl., In Phys., Corollarium de loco [CAG vol. 9 p. 639.13–22 Diels]), the situation is more complicated. In the first place, it is not immediately clear what exactly Theophrastus was trying to convey in these rather condensed phrases. As a result, opinions differ as to how the contents of this fragment relate to the aporiai of fr. 21 and to Aristotle’s theory of place. Secondly, it may well be asked to what extent Theophrastus was himself positively committed to the ideas expressed in fr. 22. Thirdly, a careful assessment of the context in which Simplicius quotes this passage is needed, for it is not immediately clear what position Simplicius assigns to Theophrastus’ conception of place in his Corollarium de loco. The existing scholarly literature on Theophrastus’ conception of place is not extensive. As to the problem of the interpretation of the more crucial fr. 22, the status quaestionis is, roughly, as follows. According to what I shall refer to as the "traditional" view—a view defended by Jammer and Sambursky—fr. 22 testifies to Theophrastus having developed a "relational" theory of place as a full-blown alternative to Aristotle’s defective theory. Sambursky characteristically compared the view expressed in Theophrastus fr. 22 with Leibniz’s theory of place. Pierre Duhem, on the other hand, saw fr. 22 as dealing with the primacy of natural place and, more or less following Simplicius, assumed a close resemblance between this view and Damascius’ theory of "essential place" (topos ousiodes). Unfortunately, however, these scholars offered little beyond a categorical statement of their position. Hence, they left room for a more detailed analysis of both fr. 21 and 22. Such an analysis has now been provided by Richard Sorabji in his challenging paper "Theophrastus on Place" and in the two relevant chapters of his book Matter, Space and Motion. As a result, any attempt to study Theophrastus’ fragments on place should come to terms with Sorabji’s interpretation, the more so since this interpretation is rather radically opposed to the traditional view. According to Sorabji, fr. 22 should not be read as representing anything like a fully developed concept of place. Rather, it is best understood as an argument (or rather an objection) with a much more limited scope, specifically directed against Aristotle’s conception of (the dynamic character of) natural place. The aim of the present study is to determine what position should be assigned to Theophrastus’ ideas about place in general, and to fr. 22 in particular, in the Rezeptionsgeschichte of Aristotelian physics. To this purpose, we shall concentrate on the three main items already referred to, viz. (1) the interpretation of fr. 22 in relation to fr. 21 and to Aristotle’s theory of topos as found in the Physics, (2) the problem of Theophrastus’ commitment, and (3) the question as to how our source Simplicius interprets, or misinterprets, Theophrastus’ position. The structure of the present study, accordingly, is as follows. Section (I) contains some observations on the systematic difficulties inherent in Aristotle’s theory of topos, which may plausibly be regarded as providing the background of Theophrastus’ aporiai in fr. 21. I shall argue that at least four out of these five aporiai (including the one dealing with the immobility of place) concern problems arising from Aristotle’s reified conception of place. This, I argue, is one prima facie reason to believe—pace Sorabji—that Theophrastus fr. 22, which explicitly swaps the conception of topos-as-a-thing for topos-as-a-relation, should be regarded as providing an alternative to Aristotle’s conception of place in general, rather than a mere alternative conception of natural place. This stance will be further defended in Section (II), which studies the role of natural place in Aristotle’s physics and in Theophrastus fr. 22 in some more detail. Section (III) deals with the problem of Theophrastus’ commitment to the contents of fr. 22. Section (IV), finally, attempts to determine what position Simplicius assigns to Theophrastus fr. 22 in his historical survey of concepts of place in the Corollarium de loco. It will be shown that Simplicius groups together Theophrastus, Iamblichus, and Damascius on the basis of a rather limited common ground between their theories. This is done in the context of an elaborate (and allegedly complete) division (diaeresis) of conceptions of place. I shall attempt to show that a closer study of the structure of this diaeresis reveals how Simplicius interpreted the text of our Theophrastus fr. 22. Since Simplicius apparently had first-hand knowledge of Theophrastus’ Physics and since, on the other hand, there are hardly any reasons to assume that Simplicius misrepresents or misunderstands Theophrastus’ position, the way he interprets fr. 22 himself is of great interest. Our conclusions are summarized in Section (V). The resulting interpretation of Theophrastus’ position differs both from the traditional one and from that put forward by Sorabji. I shall argue, against the "traditional" view, that the evidence does not indicate that Theophrastus ever worked out the suggestions of fr. 22 into a detailed and coherent alternative theory of place. Even if the fragment represents ideas endorsed by Theophrastus in propria persona, as I believe it does, we should take into account that its phrasing points to a dialectical context. At the same time, I dissent from Sorabji’s interpretation in that I do not believe that the argument has Aristotle’s concept of natural place as its exclusive, or even primary, target. The present study should therefore be regarded as an attempt to defend a qualified version of the traditional view by means of a closer study of the preserved evidence. [introduction p. 141-143] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0oHBoWr21Bfhamu |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1005","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1005,"authors_free":[{"id":1511,"entry_id":1005,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1512,"entry_id":1005,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1513,"entry_id":1005,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":379,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","free_first_name":"Dimitri","free_last_name":"Gutas","norm_person":{"id":379,"first_name":"Dimitri","last_name":"Gutas","full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122946243","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"'Place' in Context: On Theophrastus Fr. 21 et 22 Wimmer","main_title":{"title":"'Place' in Context: On Theophrastus Fr. 21 et 22 Wimmer"},"abstract":"Fr. 21 and fr. 22 Wimmer\u2014two passages in Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics\u2014constitute virtually all the available information concerning Theophrastus\u2019 ideas about place. Fr. 21 (Simpl., In Phys., Corollarium de loco [CAG vol. 9 p. 604.5\u201311 Diels]) contains a relatively straightforward enumeration of what Simplicius describes as a set of aporiai put forward by Theophrastus in connection with Aristotle\u2019s famous final definition of place as the \"inner boundary of the surrounding body.\" As to fr. 22, an allegedly verbatim quotation (Simpl., In Phys., Corollarium de loco [CAG vol. 9 p. 639.13\u201322 Diels]), the situation is more complicated. In the first place, it is not immediately clear what exactly Theophrastus was trying to convey in these rather condensed phrases. As a result, opinions differ as to how the contents of this fragment relate to the aporiai of fr. 21 and to Aristotle\u2019s theory of place. Secondly, it may well be asked to what extent Theophrastus was himself positively committed to the ideas expressed in fr. 22. Thirdly, a careful assessment of the context in which Simplicius quotes this passage is needed, for it is not immediately clear what position Simplicius assigns to Theophrastus\u2019 conception of place in his Corollarium de loco.\r\n\r\nThe existing scholarly literature on Theophrastus\u2019 conception of place is not extensive. As to the problem of the interpretation of the more crucial fr. 22, the status quaestionis is, roughly, as follows. According to what I shall refer to as the \"traditional\" view\u2014a view defended by Jammer and Sambursky\u2014fr. 22 testifies to Theophrastus having developed a \"relational\" theory of place as a full-blown alternative to Aristotle\u2019s defective theory. Sambursky characteristically compared the view expressed in Theophrastus fr. 22 with Leibniz\u2019s theory of place. Pierre Duhem, on the other hand, saw fr. 22 as dealing with the primacy of natural place and, more or less following Simplicius, assumed a close resemblance between this view and Damascius\u2019 theory of \"essential place\" (topos ousiodes). Unfortunately, however, these scholars offered little beyond a categorical statement of their position. Hence, they left room for a more detailed analysis of both fr. 21 and 22.\r\n\r\nSuch an analysis has now been provided by Richard Sorabji in his challenging paper \"Theophrastus on Place\" and in the two relevant chapters of his book Matter, Space and Motion. As a result, any attempt to study Theophrastus\u2019 fragments on place should come to terms with Sorabji\u2019s interpretation, the more so since this interpretation is rather radically opposed to the traditional view. According to Sorabji, fr. 22 should not be read as representing anything like a fully developed concept of place. Rather, it is best understood as an argument (or rather an objection) with a much more limited scope, specifically directed against Aristotle\u2019s conception of (the dynamic character of) natural place.\r\n\r\nThe aim of the present study is to determine what position should be assigned to Theophrastus\u2019 ideas about place in general, and to fr. 22 in particular, in the Rezeptionsgeschichte of Aristotelian physics. To this purpose, we shall concentrate on the three main items already referred to, viz. (1) the interpretation of fr. 22 in relation to fr. 21 and to Aristotle\u2019s theory of topos as found in the Physics, (2) the problem of Theophrastus\u2019 commitment, and (3) the question as to how our source Simplicius interprets, or misinterprets, Theophrastus\u2019 position.\r\n\r\nThe structure of the present study, accordingly, is as follows. Section (I) contains some observations on the systematic difficulties inherent in Aristotle\u2019s theory of topos, which may plausibly be regarded as providing the background of Theophrastus\u2019 aporiai in fr. 21. I shall argue that at least four out of these five aporiai (including the one dealing with the immobility of place) concern problems arising from Aristotle\u2019s reified conception of place. This, I argue, is one prima facie reason to believe\u2014pace Sorabji\u2014that Theophrastus fr. 22, which explicitly swaps the conception of topos-as-a-thing for topos-as-a-relation, should be regarded as providing an alternative to Aristotle\u2019s conception of place in general, rather than a mere alternative conception of natural place. This stance will be further defended in Section (II), which studies the role of natural place in Aristotle\u2019s physics and in Theophrastus fr. 22 in some more detail. Section (III) deals with the problem of Theophrastus\u2019 commitment to the contents of fr. 22. Section (IV), finally, attempts to determine what position Simplicius assigns to Theophrastus fr. 22 in his historical survey of concepts of place in the Corollarium de loco. It will be shown that Simplicius groups together Theophrastus, Iamblichus, and Damascius on the basis of a rather limited common ground between their theories. This is done in the context of an elaborate (and allegedly complete) division (diaeresis) of conceptions of place. I shall attempt to show that a closer study of the structure of this diaeresis reveals how Simplicius interpreted the text of our Theophrastus fr. 22. Since Simplicius apparently had first-hand knowledge of Theophrastus\u2019 Physics and since, on the other hand, there are hardly any reasons to assume that Simplicius misrepresents or misunderstands Theophrastus\u2019 position, the way he interprets fr. 22 himself is of great interest. Our conclusions are summarized in Section (V).\r\n\r\nThe resulting interpretation of Theophrastus\u2019 position differs both from the traditional one and from that put forward by Sorabji. I shall argue, against the \"traditional\" view, that the evidence does not indicate that Theophrastus ever worked out the suggestions of fr. 22 into a detailed and coherent alternative theory of place. Even if the fragment represents ideas endorsed by Theophrastus in propria persona, as I believe it does, we should take into account that its phrasing points to a dialectical context. At the same time, I dissent from Sorabji\u2019s interpretation in that I do not believe that the argument has Aristotle\u2019s concept of natural place as its exclusive, or even primary, target. The present study should therefore be regarded as an attempt to defend a qualified version of the traditional view by means of a closer study of the preserved evidence. [introduction p. 141-143]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0oHBoWr21Bfhamu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":379,"full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1005,"section_of":294,"pages":"141-165","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":294,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"Theophrastus of Eresus was Aristotle's pupil and successor as head of the Peripatetic School. He is best known as the author of the amusing Characters and two ground-breaking works in botany, but his writings extend over the entire range of Hellenistic philosophic studies. Volume 5 of Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities focuses on his scientific work. The volume contains new editions of two brief scientific essays-On Fish and Afeteoro\/o^y-accompanied by translations and commentary.\r\n\r\nAmong the contributions are: \"Peripatetic Dialectic in the De sensibus,\" Han Baltussen; \"Empedocles\" Theory of Vision and Theophrastus' De sensibus,\" David N. Sedley; \"Theophrastus on the Intellect,\" Daniel Devereux; \"Theophrastus and Aristotle on Animal Intelligence,\" Eve Browning Cole; \"Physikai doxai and Problemata physika from Aristotle to Agtius (and Beyond),\" Jap Mansfield; \"Xenophanes or Theophrastus? An Aetian Doxographicum on the Sun,\" David Runia; \"Place1 in Context: On Theophrastus, Fr. 21 and 22 Wimmer,\" Keimpe Algra; \"The Meteorology of Theophrastus in Syriac and Arabic Translation,\" Hans Daiber; \"Theophrastus' Meteorology, Aristotle and Posidonius,\" Ian G. Kidd; \"The Authorship and Sources of the Peri Semeion Ascribed to Theophrastus,\" Patrick Cronin; \"Theophrastus, On Fish\" Robert W. Sharpies.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJh1bdWfrxsEkZy","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":294,"pubplace":"New Brunswick","publisher":"Transaction Publers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1992]}
| Title | Physikai doxai and Problēmata physika from Aristotle to Aëtius (and Beyond) |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1992 |
| Published in | Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings |
| Pages | 63-111 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap |
| Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Gutas, Dimitri |
| Translator(s) |
| In Theophrastus’ bibliography at Diog. Laërt. V 48 the title is given in the genitive, Φυσικών δοξών, which means that the intended nominative may have been either Φυσικών δόξαι (The Tenets of the Philosophers of Nature) or Φυσικαί δόξαι (The Tenets in Natural Philosophy). Scholars have been divided over this issue; although the majority have followed Usener and Diels, there are a number of noteworthy exceptions.8 What we have here is by no means a minor problem, because the precise meaning of the title is influential in determining our impression of what the book was about. In the present paper, I shall try to demonstrate, in various ways, that the book-title has to be Φυσικάι δόξαι. [p. 64] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/va3DLcPD91tJsO7 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1011","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1011,"authors_free":[{"id":1525,"entry_id":1011,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1526,"entry_id":1011,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1527,"entry_id":1011,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":379,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","free_first_name":"Dimitri","free_last_name":"Gutas","norm_person":{"id":379,"first_name":"Dimitri","last_name":"Gutas","full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122946243","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Physikai doxai and Probl\u0113mata physika from Aristotle to A\u00ebtius (and Beyond)","main_title":{"title":"Physikai doxai and Probl\u0113mata physika from Aristotle to A\u00ebtius (and Beyond)"},"abstract":"In Theophrastus\u2019 bibliography at Diog. La\u00ebrt. V 48 the title is given in the \r\ngenitive, \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03ce\u03bd, which means that the intended nominative may have \r\nbeen either \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 (The Tenets of the Philosophers of Nature) or \r\n\u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 (The Tenets in Natural Philosophy). Scholars have been divided \r\nover this issue; although the majority have followed Usener and Diels, there are \r\na number of noteworthy exceptions.8 What we have here is by no means a \r\nminor problem, because the precise meaning of the title is influential in \r\ndetermining our impression of what the book was about. In the present paper, \r\nI shall try to demonstrate, in various ways, that the book-title has to be \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03b9\r\n\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9. [p. 64]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/va3DLcPD91tJsO7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":379,"full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1011,"section_of":294,"pages":"63-111","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":294,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"Theophrastus of Eresus was Aristotle's pupil and successor as head of the Peripatetic School. He is best known as the author of the amusing Characters and two ground-breaking works in botany, but his writings extend over the entire range of Hellenistic philosophic studies. Volume 5 of Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities focuses on his scientific work. The volume contains new editions of two brief scientific essays-On Fish and Afeteoro\/o^y-accompanied by translations and commentary.\r\n\r\nAmong the contributions are: \"Peripatetic Dialectic in the De sensibus,\" Han Baltussen; \"Empedocles\" Theory of Vision and Theophrastus' De sensibus,\" David N. Sedley; \"Theophrastus on the Intellect,\" Daniel Devereux; \"Theophrastus and Aristotle on Animal Intelligence,\" Eve Browning Cole; \"Physikai doxai and Problemata physika from Aristotle to Agtius (and Beyond),\" Jap Mansfield; \"Xenophanes or Theophrastus? An Aetian Doxographicum on the Sun,\" David Runia; \"Place1 in Context: On Theophrastus, Fr. 21 and 22 Wimmer,\" Keimpe Algra; \"The Meteorology of Theophrastus in Syriac and Arabic Translation,\" Hans Daiber; \"Theophrastus' Meteorology, Aristotle and Posidonius,\" Ian G. Kidd; \"The Authorship and Sources of the Peri Semeion Ascribed to Theophrastus,\" Patrick Cronin; \"Theophrastus, On Fish\" Robert W. Sharpies.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJh1bdWfrxsEkZy","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":294,"pubplace":"New Brunswick","publisher":"Transaction Publers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":[1992]}
| Title | 'Place' in Context: On Theophrastus Fr. 21 et 22 Wimmer |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1992 |
| Published in | Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings |
| Pages | 141-165 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Algra, Keimpe A. |
| Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Gutas, Dimitri |
| Translator(s) |
Fr. 21 and fr. 22 Wimmer—two passages in Simplicius’ commentary on Aristotle’s Physics—constitute virtually all the available information concerning Theophrastus’ ideas about place. Fr. 21 (Simpl., In Phys., Corollarium de loco [CAG vol. 9 p. 604.5–11 Diels]) contains a relatively straightforward enumeration of what Simplicius describes as a set of aporiai put forward by Theophrastus in connection with Aristotle’s famous final definition of place as the "inner boundary of the surrounding body." As to fr. 22, an allegedly verbatim quotation (Simpl., In Phys., Corollarium de loco [CAG vol. 9 p. 639.13–22 Diels]), the situation is more complicated. In the first place, it is not immediately clear what exactly Theophrastus was trying to convey in these rather condensed phrases. As a result, opinions differ as to how the contents of this fragment relate to the aporiai of fr. 21 and to Aristotle’s theory of place. Secondly, it may well be asked to what extent Theophrastus was himself positively committed to the ideas expressed in fr. 22. Thirdly, a careful assessment of the context in which Simplicius quotes this passage is needed, for it is not immediately clear what position Simplicius assigns to Theophrastus’ conception of place in his Corollarium de loco. The existing scholarly literature on Theophrastus’ conception of place is not extensive. As to the problem of the interpretation of the more crucial fr. 22, the status quaestionis is, roughly, as follows. According to what I shall refer to as the "traditional" view—a view defended by Jammer and Sambursky—fr. 22 testifies to Theophrastus having developed a "relational" theory of place as a full-blown alternative to Aristotle’s defective theory. Sambursky characteristically compared the view expressed in Theophrastus fr. 22 with Leibniz’s theory of place. Pierre Duhem, on the other hand, saw fr. 22 as dealing with the primacy of natural place and, more or less following Simplicius, assumed a close resemblance between this view and Damascius’ theory of "essential place" (topos ousiodes). Unfortunately, however, these scholars offered little beyond a categorical statement of their position. Hence, they left room for a more detailed analysis of both fr. 21 and 22. Such an analysis has now been provided by Richard Sorabji in his challenging paper "Theophrastus on Place" and in the two relevant chapters of his book Matter, Space and Motion. As a result, any attempt to study Theophrastus’ fragments on place should come to terms with Sorabji’s interpretation, the more so since this interpretation is rather radically opposed to the traditional view. According to Sorabji, fr. 22 should not be read as representing anything like a fully developed concept of place. Rather, it is best understood as an argument (or rather an objection) with a much more limited scope, specifically directed against Aristotle’s conception of (the dynamic character of) natural place. The aim of the present study is to determine what position should be assigned to Theophrastus’ ideas about place in general, and to fr. 22 in particular, in the Rezeptionsgeschichte of Aristotelian physics. To this purpose, we shall concentrate on the three main items already referred to, viz. (1) the interpretation of fr. 22 in relation to fr. 21 and to Aristotle’s theory of topos as found in the Physics, (2) the problem of Theophrastus’ commitment, and (3) the question as to how our source Simplicius interprets, or misinterprets, Theophrastus’ position. The structure of the present study, accordingly, is as follows. Section (I) contains some observations on the systematic difficulties inherent in Aristotle’s theory of topos, which may plausibly be regarded as providing the background of Theophrastus’ aporiai in fr. 21. I shall argue that at least four out of these five aporiai (including the one dealing with the immobility of place) concern problems arising from Aristotle’s reified conception of place. This, I argue, is one prima facie reason to believe—pace Sorabji—that Theophrastus fr. 22, which explicitly swaps the conception of topos-as-a-thing for topos-as-a-relation, should be regarded as providing an alternative to Aristotle’s conception of place in general, rather than a mere alternative conception of natural place. This stance will be further defended in Section (II), which studies the role of natural place in Aristotle’s physics and in Theophrastus fr. 22 in some more detail. Section (III) deals with the problem of Theophrastus’ commitment to the contents of fr. 22. Section (IV), finally, attempts to determine what position Simplicius assigns to Theophrastus fr. 22 in his historical survey of concepts of place in the Corollarium de loco. It will be shown that Simplicius groups together Theophrastus, Iamblichus, and Damascius on the basis of a rather limited common ground between their theories. This is done in the context of an elaborate (and allegedly complete) division (diaeresis) of conceptions of place. I shall attempt to show that a closer study of the structure of this diaeresis reveals how Simplicius interpreted the text of our Theophrastus fr. 22. Since Simplicius apparently had first-hand knowledge of Theophrastus’ Physics and since, on the other hand, there are hardly any reasons to assume that Simplicius misrepresents or misunderstands Theophrastus’ position, the way he interprets fr. 22 himself is of great interest. Our conclusions are summarized in Section (V). The resulting interpretation of Theophrastus’ position differs both from the traditional one and from that put forward by Sorabji. I shall argue, against the "traditional" view, that the evidence does not indicate that Theophrastus ever worked out the suggestions of fr. 22 into a detailed and coherent alternative theory of place. Even if the fragment represents ideas endorsed by Theophrastus in propria persona, as I believe it does, we should take into account that its phrasing points to a dialectical context. At the same time, I dissent from Sorabji’s interpretation in that I do not believe that the argument has Aristotle’s concept of natural place as its exclusive, or even primary, target. The present study should therefore be regarded as an attempt to defend a qualified version of the traditional view by means of a closer study of the preserved evidence. [introduction p. 141-143] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/0oHBoWr21Bfhamu |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1005","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1005,"authors_free":[{"id":1511,"entry_id":1005,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":28,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","free_first_name":"Keimpe A.","free_last_name":"Algra","norm_person":{"id":28,"first_name":"Keimpe A.","last_name":"Algra","full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/115110992","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1512,"entry_id":1005,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1513,"entry_id":1005,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":379,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","free_first_name":"Dimitri","free_last_name":"Gutas","norm_person":{"id":379,"first_name":"Dimitri","last_name":"Gutas","full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122946243","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"'Place' in Context: On Theophrastus Fr. 21 et 22 Wimmer","main_title":{"title":"'Place' in Context: On Theophrastus Fr. 21 et 22 Wimmer"},"abstract":"Fr. 21 and fr. 22 Wimmer\u2014two passages in Simplicius\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s Physics\u2014constitute virtually all the available information concerning Theophrastus\u2019 ideas about place. Fr. 21 (Simpl., In Phys., Corollarium de loco [CAG vol. 9 p. 604.5\u201311 Diels]) contains a relatively straightforward enumeration of what Simplicius describes as a set of aporiai put forward by Theophrastus in connection with Aristotle\u2019s famous final definition of place as the \"inner boundary of the surrounding body.\" As to fr. 22, an allegedly verbatim quotation (Simpl., In Phys., Corollarium de loco [CAG vol. 9 p. 639.13\u201322 Diels]), the situation is more complicated. In the first place, it is not immediately clear what exactly Theophrastus was trying to convey in these rather condensed phrases. As a result, opinions differ as to how the contents of this fragment relate to the aporiai of fr. 21 and to Aristotle\u2019s theory of place. Secondly, it may well be asked to what extent Theophrastus was himself positively committed to the ideas expressed in fr. 22. Thirdly, a careful assessment of the context in which Simplicius quotes this passage is needed, for it is not immediately clear what position Simplicius assigns to Theophrastus\u2019 conception of place in his Corollarium de loco.\r\n\r\nThe existing scholarly literature on Theophrastus\u2019 conception of place is not extensive. As to the problem of the interpretation of the more crucial fr. 22, the status quaestionis is, roughly, as follows. According to what I shall refer to as the \"traditional\" view\u2014a view defended by Jammer and Sambursky\u2014fr. 22 testifies to Theophrastus having developed a \"relational\" theory of place as a full-blown alternative to Aristotle\u2019s defective theory. Sambursky characteristically compared the view expressed in Theophrastus fr. 22 with Leibniz\u2019s theory of place. Pierre Duhem, on the other hand, saw fr. 22 as dealing with the primacy of natural place and, more or less following Simplicius, assumed a close resemblance between this view and Damascius\u2019 theory of \"essential place\" (topos ousiodes). Unfortunately, however, these scholars offered little beyond a categorical statement of their position. Hence, they left room for a more detailed analysis of both fr. 21 and 22.\r\n\r\nSuch an analysis has now been provided by Richard Sorabji in his challenging paper \"Theophrastus on Place\" and in the two relevant chapters of his book Matter, Space and Motion. As a result, any attempt to study Theophrastus\u2019 fragments on place should come to terms with Sorabji\u2019s interpretation, the more so since this interpretation is rather radically opposed to the traditional view. According to Sorabji, fr. 22 should not be read as representing anything like a fully developed concept of place. Rather, it is best understood as an argument (or rather an objection) with a much more limited scope, specifically directed against Aristotle\u2019s conception of (the dynamic character of) natural place.\r\n\r\nThe aim of the present study is to determine what position should be assigned to Theophrastus\u2019 ideas about place in general, and to fr. 22 in particular, in the Rezeptionsgeschichte of Aristotelian physics. To this purpose, we shall concentrate on the three main items already referred to, viz. (1) the interpretation of fr. 22 in relation to fr. 21 and to Aristotle\u2019s theory of topos as found in the Physics, (2) the problem of Theophrastus\u2019 commitment, and (3) the question as to how our source Simplicius interprets, or misinterprets, Theophrastus\u2019 position.\r\n\r\nThe structure of the present study, accordingly, is as follows. Section (I) contains some observations on the systematic difficulties inherent in Aristotle\u2019s theory of topos, which may plausibly be regarded as providing the background of Theophrastus\u2019 aporiai in fr. 21. I shall argue that at least four out of these five aporiai (including the one dealing with the immobility of place) concern problems arising from Aristotle\u2019s reified conception of place. This, I argue, is one prima facie reason to believe\u2014pace Sorabji\u2014that Theophrastus fr. 22, which explicitly swaps the conception of topos-as-a-thing for topos-as-a-relation, should be regarded as providing an alternative to Aristotle\u2019s conception of place in general, rather than a mere alternative conception of natural place. This stance will be further defended in Section (II), which studies the role of natural place in Aristotle\u2019s physics and in Theophrastus fr. 22 in some more detail. Section (III) deals with the problem of Theophrastus\u2019 commitment to the contents of fr. 22. Section (IV), finally, attempts to determine what position Simplicius assigns to Theophrastus fr. 22 in his historical survey of concepts of place in the Corollarium de loco. It will be shown that Simplicius groups together Theophrastus, Iamblichus, and Damascius on the basis of a rather limited common ground between their theories. This is done in the context of an elaborate (and allegedly complete) division (diaeresis) of conceptions of place. I shall attempt to show that a closer study of the structure of this diaeresis reveals how Simplicius interpreted the text of our Theophrastus fr. 22. Since Simplicius apparently had first-hand knowledge of Theophrastus\u2019 Physics and since, on the other hand, there are hardly any reasons to assume that Simplicius misrepresents or misunderstands Theophrastus\u2019 position, the way he interprets fr. 22 himself is of great interest. Our conclusions are summarized in Section (V).\r\n\r\nThe resulting interpretation of Theophrastus\u2019 position differs both from the traditional one and from that put forward by Sorabji. I shall argue, against the \"traditional\" view, that the evidence does not indicate that Theophrastus ever worked out the suggestions of fr. 22 into a detailed and coherent alternative theory of place. Even if the fragment represents ideas endorsed by Theophrastus in propria persona, as I believe it does, we should take into account that its phrasing points to a dialectical context. At the same time, I dissent from Sorabji\u2019s interpretation in that I do not believe that the argument has Aristotle\u2019s concept of natural place as its exclusive, or even primary, target. The present study should therefore be regarded as an attempt to defend a qualified version of the traditional view by means of a closer study of the preserved evidence. [introduction p. 141-143]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/0oHBoWr21Bfhamu","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":28,"full_name":"Algra, Keimpe A.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":379,"full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1005,"section_of":294,"pages":"141-165","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":294,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"Theophrastus of Eresus was Aristotle's pupil and successor as head of the Peripatetic School. He is best known as the author of the amusing Characters and two ground-breaking works in botany, but his writings extend over the entire range of Hellenistic philosophic studies. Volume 5 of Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities focuses on his scientific work. The volume contains new editions of two brief scientific essays-On Fish and Afeteoro\/o^y-accompanied by translations and commentary.\r\n\r\nAmong the contributions are: \"Peripatetic Dialectic in the De sensibus,\" Han Baltussen; \"Empedocles\" Theory of Vision and Theophrastus' De sensibus,\" David N. Sedley; \"Theophrastus on the Intellect,\" Daniel Devereux; \"Theophrastus and Aristotle on Animal Intelligence,\" Eve Browning Cole; \"Physikai doxai and Problemata physika from Aristotle to Agtius (and Beyond),\" Jap Mansfield; \"Xenophanes or Theophrastus? An Aetian Doxographicum on the Sun,\" David Runia; \"Place1 in Context: On Theophrastus, Fr. 21 and 22 Wimmer,\" Keimpe Algra; \"The Meteorology of Theophrastus in Syriac and Arabic Translation,\" Hans Daiber; \"Theophrastus' Meteorology, Aristotle and Posidonius,\" Ian G. Kidd; \"The Authorship and Sources of the Peri Semeion Ascribed to Theophrastus,\" Patrick Cronin; \"Theophrastus, On Fish\" Robert W. Sharpies.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJh1bdWfrxsEkZy","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":294,"pubplace":"New Brunswick","publisher":"Transaction Publers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["'Place' in Context: On Theophrastus Fr. 21 et 22 Wimmer"]}
| Title | Physikai doxai and Problēmata physika from Aristotle to Aëtius (and Beyond) |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1992 |
| Published in | Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings |
| Pages | 63-111 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | Mansfeld, Jaap |
| Editor(s) | Fortenbaugh, William W. , Gutas, Dimitri |
| Translator(s) |
In Theophrastus’ bibliography at Diog. Laërt. V 48 the title is given in the genitive, Φυσικών δοξών, which means that the intended nominative may have been either Φυσικών δόξαι (The Tenets of the Philosophers of Nature) or Φυσικαί δόξαι (The Tenets in Natural Philosophy). Scholars have been divided over this issue; although the majority have followed Usener and Diels, there are a number of noteworthy exceptions.8 What we have here is by no means a minor problem, because the precise meaning of the title is influential in determining our impression of what the book was about. In the present paper, I shall try to demonstrate, in various ways, that the book-title has to be Φυσικάι δόξαι. [p. 64] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/va3DLcPD91tJsO7 |
{"_index":"sire","_id":"1011","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1011,"authors_free":[{"id":1525,"entry_id":1011,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":29,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","free_first_name":"Jaap","free_last_name":"Mansfeld","norm_person":{"id":29,"first_name":"Jaap","last_name":"Mansfeld","full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/119383217","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1526,"entry_id":1011,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":7,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W.","free_first_name":"William W.","free_last_name":"Fortenbaugh","norm_person":{"id":7,"first_name":"William W. ","last_name":"Fortenbaugh","full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/110233700","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}},{"id":1527,"entry_id":1011,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":379,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","free_first_name":"Dimitri","free_last_name":"Gutas","norm_person":{"id":379,"first_name":"Dimitri","last_name":"Gutas","full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/122946243","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Physikai doxai and Probl\u0113mata physika from Aristotle to A\u00ebtius (and Beyond)","main_title":{"title":"Physikai doxai and Probl\u0113mata physika from Aristotle to A\u00ebtius (and Beyond)"},"abstract":"In Theophrastus\u2019 bibliography at Diog. La\u00ebrt. V 48 the title is given in the \r\ngenitive, \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03be\u03ce\u03bd, which means that the intended nominative may have \r\nbeen either \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ce\u03bd \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 (The Tenets of the Philosophers of Nature) or \r\n\u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03af \u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9 (The Tenets in Natural Philosophy). Scholars have been divided \r\nover this issue; although the majority have followed Usener and Diels, there are \r\na number of noteworthy exceptions.8 What we have here is by no means a \r\nminor problem, because the precise meaning of the title is influential in \r\ndetermining our impression of what the book was about. In the present paper, \r\nI shall try to demonstrate, in various ways, that the book-title has to be \u03a6\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ac\u03b9\r\n\u03b4\u03cc\u03be\u03b1\u03b9. [p. 64]","btype":2,"date":"1992","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/va3DLcPD91tJsO7","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":29,"full_name":"Mansfeld, Jaap","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}},{"id":7,"full_name":"Fortenbaugh, William W. ","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}},{"id":379,"full_name":"Gutas, Dimitri","role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"}}],"book":null,"booksection":{"id":1011,"section_of":294,"pages":"63-111","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":294,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":null,"type":4,"language":"en","title":"Theophrastus. His Psychological, Doxographical and Scientific Writings","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"Fortenbaugh1992","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"1992","edition_no":null,"free_date":"1992","abstract":"Theophrastus of Eresus was Aristotle's pupil and successor as head of the Peripatetic School. He is best known as the author of the amusing Characters and two ground-breaking works in botany, but his writings extend over the entire range of Hellenistic philosophic studies. Volume 5 of Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities focuses on his scientific work. The volume contains new editions of two brief scientific essays-On Fish and Afeteoro\/o^y-accompanied by translations and commentary.\r\n\r\nAmong the contributions are: \"Peripatetic Dialectic in the De sensibus,\" Han Baltussen; \"Empedocles\" Theory of Vision and Theophrastus' De sensibus,\" David N. Sedley; \"Theophrastus on the Intellect,\" Daniel Devereux; \"Theophrastus and Aristotle on Animal Intelligence,\" Eve Browning Cole; \"Physikai doxai and Problemata physika from Aristotle to Agtius (and Beyond),\" Jap Mansfield; \"Xenophanes or Theophrastus? An Aetian Doxographicum on the Sun,\" David Runia; \"Place1 in Context: On Theophrastus, Fr. 21 and 22 Wimmer,\" Keimpe Algra; \"The Meteorology of Theophrastus in Syriac and Arabic Translation,\" Hans Daiber; \"Theophrastus' Meteorology, Aristotle and Posidonius,\" Ian G. Kidd; \"The Authorship and Sources of the Peri Semeion Ascribed to Theophrastus,\" Patrick Cronin; \"Theophrastus, On Fish\" Robert W. Sharpies.","republication_of":null,"online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/CJh1bdWfrxsEkZy","translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"doi_url":null,"book":{"id":294,"pubplace":"New Brunswick","publisher":"Transaction Publers","series":"Rutgers University Studies in Classical Humanities","volume":"5","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null}}},"article":null},"sort":["Physikai doxai and Probl\u0113mata physika from Aristotle to A\u00ebtius (and Beyond)"]}